list_mjx_endpoint_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds context by specifying 'live status' and describing the name filter and pagination, which enhances transparency beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, uses a clear structure with labeled args, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the output schema exists, return values need not be detailed. The description adequately covers the tool's purpose and main parameters. It could mention the scope (e.g., 'lists all MJX endpoints'), but current text is sufficient for a list operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'name_contains' as case-insensitive substring match and 'limit, offset, fetch_all' as pagination controls, adding meaning beyond the schema titles. However, the pagination description is somewhat generic.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it lists 'One-Touch Join endpoint live status', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_mjx_endpoint_status' and 'list_mjx_meeting_status' by focusing on live status of endpoints.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The pagination controls imply listing, but there's no mention of when to choose this over 'get_mjx_endpoint_status' or other list tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.